Anitha v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.06.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.363 of 2019 Anitha ..Petitioner Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, The Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai - 7.
..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.964/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 24.10.2018 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Appu @ Chinna Appu @ Pradeep S/o. Velayudham the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's on Appu @ Chinna Appu @ Pradeep, S/o. Velayudham aged about 25 years the detenu herein set him at liberty.
For Petitioner ..
Mr.N.Naresh For Respondents..
Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj, Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Appu @ Chinna Appu @ Pradeep S/o. Velayudham. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.964/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 24.10.2018, holding her to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that page Nos.54 and 55 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu would show that the arrest intimation of the detenu has been given to Anitha, W/o.Prakash instead of Anitha, W/o.Velayudham. Therefore, it is stated that the detenu was deprived of making an effective representation. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the mother of the detenu. However, we find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such cases that the detention order cannot be sustained. 5.A perusal of the document in Page Nos.54 and 55 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu would show that the arrest intimation of the detenu has been given to Anitha, W/o.Prakash instead of Anitha, W/o.Velayudham. In the arrest intimation, the father's name of the detenu has been wrongly mentioned as Prakash instead of Velayudham. Therefore, mentioning the name of the petitioner's husband wrongly in the arrest intimation shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and the same would vitiate the order of detention.
6.It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed. 7.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.964/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 24.10.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Appu @ Chinna Appu @ Pradeep S/o. Velayudham is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, The Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai - 7.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and order) Fort.St.George, Chennai 9. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.363 of 2019 A.SK(27/08/2019)